In this great tutorial for PyCon 2020, Eric Ma proposes a very simple framework for machine learning, consisting of only three elements:
By adjusting the three elements in this simple framework, you can build any type of machine learning program.
In the tutorial, Eric shows you how to implement this same framework in Python (using jax) and implement linear regression, logistic regression, and artificial neural networks all in the same way (using gradient descent).
I can’t even begin to explain it as well as Eric does himself, so I highly recommend you watch and code along with the Youtube tutorial (~1 hour):
Have you ever wondered what goes on behind the scenes of a deep learning framework? Or what is going on behind that pre-trained model that you took from Kaggle? Then this tutorial is for you! In this tutorial, we will demystify the internals of deep learning frameworks – in the process equipping us with foundational knowledge that lets us understand what is going on when we train and fit a deep learning model. By learning the foundations without a deep learning framework as a pedagogical crutch, you will walk away with foundational knowledge that will give you the confidence to implement any model you want in any framework you choose.
Ryan Holbrook made awesome animated GIFs in R of several classifiers learning a decision rule boundary between two classes. Basically, what you see is a machine learning model in action, learning how to distinguish data of two classes, say cats and dogs, using some X and Y variables.
These visuals can be great to understand these algorithms, the models, and their learning process a bit better.
Here’s the original tweet, with the logistic regression animation. If you follow it, you will find a whole thread of classifier GIFs. These I extracted, pasted, and explained below.
Below is the GIF which I extracted using EZgif.com.
What you see is observations from two classes, say cats and dogs, each represented using colored dots. The dots are placed along X and Y axes, which represent variables about the observations. Their tail lengths and their hairyness, for instance.
Now there’s an optimal way to seperate these classes, which is the dashed line. That line best seperates the cats from the dogs based on these two variables X and Y. As this is an optimal boundary given this data, it is stable, it does not change.
However, there’s also a solid black line, which does change. This line represents the learned boundary by the machine learning model, in this case using logistic regression. As the model is shown more data, it learns, and the boundary is updated. This learned boundary represents the best line with which the model has learned to seperate cats from dogs.
Anything above the boundary is predicted to be class 1, a dog. Everything below predicted to be class 2, a cat. As logistic regression results in a linear model, the seperation boundary is very much linear/straight.
These animations are great to get a sense of how the models come to their boundaries in the back-end.
For instance, other machine learning models are able to use non-linear boundaries to dinstinguish classes, such as this quadratic discriminant analysis (qda). This “learned” boundary is much closer to the optimal boundary:
Next, we have the k-nearest neighbors algorithm, which predicts for each point (animal) the class (cat/dog) based on the “k” points closest to it. As you see, this results in a highly fluctuating, localized boundary.
Now, Ryan decided to push the challenge, and simulate new data for two classes with a more difficult decision boundary. The new data and optimal boundaries look like this:
On these data, Ryan put a whole range of non-linear models to work.
Like this support-vector machine, which tries to create optimal boundaries built of support vectors around all the cats and all the dohs (this is definitely not a technical, error-free explanation of what’s happening here).
I was training a predictive model for work for use in a Shiny App. However, as the training set was quite large (700k+ obs.), the model object to save was also quite large in size (500mb). This slows down your operation significantly!
Basically, all you really need are the coefficients (and a link function, in case of glm()). However, I can imagine that you are not eager to write new custom predictions functions, but that you would rather want to rely on R’s predict.lm and predict.glm. Hence, you’ll need to save some more object information.
Via Google I came to this blog, which provides this great custom R function (below) to decrease the object size of trained generalized linear models considerably! It retains only those object data that are necessary to make R’s predict functions work.
My saved linear model went from taking up half a GB to only 27kb! That’s a 99.995% reduction!
Recently, I came across a social science paper that had used linear probability regression. I had never heard of linear probability models (LPM), but it seems just an application of ordinary least squares regression but to a binomial dependent variable.
According to some, LPM is a commonly used alternative for logistic regression, which is what I was learned to use when the outcome is binary.
Potentially because of my own social science background (HRM), using linear regression without a link transformation on binary data just seems very unintuitive and error-prone to me. Hence, I sought for more information.
I particularly liked this article by Jake Westfall, which he dubbed “Logistic regression is not fucked”, following a series of blogs in which he talks about methods that are fucked and not useful.
Jake explains the classification problem and both methods inner workings in a very straightforward way, using great visual aids. He shows how LMP would differ from logistic models, and why its proposed benefits are actually not so beneficial. Maybe I’m in my bubble, but Jake’s arguments resonated.
Here’s the summary: Arguments against the use of logistic regression due to problems with “unobserved heterogeneity” proceed from two distinct sets of premises. The first argument points out that if the binary outcome arises from a latent continuous outcome and a threshold, then observed effects also reflect latent heteroskedasticity. This is true, but only relevant in cases where we actually care about an underlying continuous variable, which is not usually the case. The second argument points out that logistic regression coefficients are not collapsible over uncorrelated covariates, and claims that this precludes any substantive interpretation. On the contrary, we can interpret logistic regression coefficients perfectly well in the face of non-collapsibility by thinking clearly about the conditional probabilities they refer to.
Josh Starmer is assistant professor at the genetics department of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
But more importantly: Josh is the mastermind behind StatQuest!
StatQuest is a Youtube channel (and website) dedicated to explaining complex statistical concepts — like data distributions, probability, or novel machine learning algorithms — in simple terms.
Once you watch one of Josh’s “Stat-Quests”, you immediately recognize the effort he put into this project. Using great visuals, a just-about-right pace, and relateable examples, Josh makes statistics accessible to everyone. For instance, take this series on logistic regression:
And do you really know what happens under the hood when you run a principal component analysis? After this video you will:
Or are you more interested in learning the fundamental concepts behind machine learning, then Josh has some videos for you, for instance on bias and variance or gradient descent:
With nearly 200 videos and counting, StatQuest is truly an amazing resource for students ‘and teachers on topics related to statistics and data analytics. For some of the concepts, Josh even posted videos running you through the analysis steps and results interpretation in the R language.
StatQuest started out as an attempt to explain statistics to my co-workers – who are all genetics researchers at UNC-Chapel Hill. They did these amazing experiments, but they didn’t always know what to do with the data they generated. That was my job. But I wanted them to understand that what I do isn’t magic – it’s actually quite simple. It only seems hard because it’s all wrapped up in confusing terminology and typically communicated using equations. I found that if I stripped away the terminology and communicated the concepts using pictures, it became easy to understand.
Over time I made more and more StatQuests and now it’s my passion on YouTube.
Simpson (1951) demonstrated that a statistical relationship observed within a population—i.e., a group of individuals—could be reversed within all subgroups that make up that population. This phenomenon, where X seems to relate to Y in a certain way, but flips direction when the population is split for W, has since been referred to as Simpson’s paradox. Others names, according to Wikipedia, include the Simpson-Yule effect, reversal paradox or amalgamation paradox.
The most famous example has to be the seemingly gender-biased Berkeley admission rates:
“Examination of aggregate data on graduate admissions to the University of California, Berkeley, for fall 1973 shows a clear but misleading pattern of bias against female applicants. Examination of the disaggregated data reveals few decision-making units that show statistically significant departures from expected frequencies of female admissions, and about as many units appear to favor women as to favor men. If the data are properly pooled, taking into account the autonomy of departmental decision making, thus correcting for the tendency of women to apply to graduate departments that are more difficult for applicants of either sex to enter, there is a small but statistically significant bias in favor of women. […] The bias in the aggregated data stems not from any pattern of discrimination on the part of admissions committees, which seem quite fair on the whole, but apparently from prior screening at earlier levels of the educational system.” – part of abstract of Bickel, Hammel, & O’Connel (1975)
In a table, the effect becomes clear. While it seems as if women are rejected more often overall, women are actually less often rejected on a departmental level. Women simply applied to more selective departments more often (E & C below), resulting in the overall lower admission rate for women (35% as opposed to 44% for men).
Examples in HR
Simpsons Paradox can easily occur in organizational or human resources settings as well. Let me run you through two illustrated examples, I simulated:
Assume you run a company of 1000 employees and you have asked all of them to fill out a Big Five personality survey. Per individual, you therefore have a score depicting his/her personality characteristic Neuroticism, which can run from 0 (not at all neurotic) to 7 (very neurotic). Now you are interested in the extent to which this Neuroticism of employees relates to their Job Performance (measured 0 – 100) and their Salary (measured in Euro’s per Year). In order to get a sense of the effects, you may decide to visualize both these relations in scatter plots:
From these visualizations it would look like Neuroticism relates significantly and positively to both employees’ performance and their yearly salary. Should you select more neurotic people to improve your overall company performance? Or are you discriminating emotionally-stable (non-neurotic) employees when it comes to salary?
Taking a closer look at the subgroups in your data, you might however find very different relationships. For instance, the positive relationship between neuroticism and performance may only apply to technical positions, but not to those employees’ in service-oriented jobs.
Similarly, splitting the employees by education level, it becomes clear that there is a relationship between neuroticism and education level that may explain the earlier association with salary. More educated employees receive higher salaries and within these groups, neuroticism is actually related to lower yearly income.
If you’d like to see the code used to simulate these data and generate the examples, you can find the R markdown file here on Rpubs.
Solving the paradox
Kievit and colleagues (2013) argue that Simpsons paradox may occur in a wide variety of research designs, methods, and questions, particularly within the social and medical sciences. As such, they propose several means to “control” or minimize the risk of it occurring. The paradox may be prevented from occurring altogether by more rigorous research design: testing mechanisms in longitudinal or intervention studies. However, this is not always feasible. Alternatively, the researchers pose that data visualization may help recognize the patterns and subgroups and thereby diagnose paradoxes. This may be easy if your data looks like this:
But rather hard, or even impossible, when your data looks more like the below:
Clustering may nevertheless help to detect Simpson’s paradox when it is not directly observable in the data. To this end, Kievit and Epskamp (2012) have developed a tool to facilitate the detection of hitherto undetected patterns of association in existing datasets. It is written in R, a language specifically tailored for a wide variety of statistical analyses which makes it very suitable for integration into the regular analysis workflow. As an R package, the tool is is freely available and specializes in the detection of cases of Simpson’s paradox for bivariate continuous data with categorical grouping variables (also known as Robinson’s paradox), a very common inference type for psychologists. Finally, its code is open source and can be extended and improved upon depending on the nature of the data being studied.
One example of application is provided in the paper, for a dataset on coffee and neuroticism. A regression analysis would suggest a significant positive association between coffee and neuroticism overall. However, when the detection algorithm of the R package is applied, a different picture appears: the analysis shows that there are three latent clusters present and that the purported positive relationship only holds for one cluster whereas it is negative in the others.
Update 24-10-2017: minutephysics – one of my favorite YouTube channels – uploaded a video explaining Simpson’s paradox very intuitively in a medical context: